Rood v. Hurd
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Replevin to recover property unlawfully detained; brought to the District Court of Litchfield County. The plaintiffs, after the property had been replevied to them, and the case had been entered in the docket of the court, filed a motion that it be erased from the docket, on the ground that it appeared by the declaration that the property when replevied was held by the defendant by virtue of an execution, and that replevin would not lie for property so held, and that the…
Read the full summary
Replevin to recover property unlawfully detained; brought to the District Court of Litchfield County. The plaintiffs, after the property had been replevied to them, and the case had been entered in the docket of the court, filed a motion that it be erased from the docket, on the ground that it appeared by the declaration that the property when replevied was held by the defendant by virtue of an execution, and that replevin would not lie for property so held, and that the court had therefore no jurisdiction. The court (HitchcocTc, «7.,) overruled the motion, and after a judgment against them…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, C. J.
The process in this case was not void and therefore the court committed no error in refusing to erase the cause from the docket. The court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, of the parties, and of the process; and this is all that constitutes jurisdiction. But the plaintiffs say that it has been held by this court, in the recent case of Howard v. Crandall, 39 Conn., 213, that the action of replevin will not lie to recover property held on execution. But that is a question merely as to the action being sustained and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction. A…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Howard v. CrandallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872